Free rein feeding method

[U_Stormcrow]

@Ital you may find this useful (freely available, online): Kim S, Sung J, Foo M, Jin Y-S, Kim P-J (2015) Uncovering the Nutritional Landscape of Food. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118697

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697

There's a lot in it, and it's not an easy read, but it does focus on raw foods, and on the interactions and correlations between different foods (instead of treating each in splendid isolation as if a chicken or person ate X and only X, which none naturally does). It concludes
"Nutritional fitness, which gauges the quality of a raw food according to its nutritional balance, appears to be widely dispersed over different foods, raising questions on the origins of such variations between foods. Remarkably, this nutritional balance of food does not solely depend on the characteristics of individual nutrients but is also structured by intimate correlations among multiple nutrients in their amounts across foods. This underscores the importance of nutrient-nutrient connections, which constitute the network structures embodying multiple levels of the nutritional compositions of foods".

edited to add, for Storm's benefit "An interesting question is whether foods with high NFs tend to be more expensive to purchase than foods with low NFs. Fig. 2C shows essentially no correlation between a food’s NF and price per weight (r = −0.02, P = 0.65; see also Fig. E in S1 Appendix)."

My economics arguments foccus on the differences in final price enjoyed by we as end consumers compared to the scale producers, not the individual ingredients specifically, since so many are focused on efforts to make feed at home to save money.

 

[saysfaa]

@Ital you may find this useful (freely available, online): Kim S, Sung J, Foo M, Jin Y-S, Kim P-J (2015) Uncovering the Nutritional Landscape of Food. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0118697

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118697

There's a lot in it, and it's not an easy read, but it does focus on raw foods, and on the interactions and correlations between different foods (instead of treating each in splendid isolation as if a chicken or person ate X and only X, which none naturally does). It concludes
"Nutritional fitness, which gauges the quality of a raw food according to its nutritional balance, appears to be widely dispersed over different foods, raising questions on the origins of such variations between foods. Remarkably, this nutritional balance of food does not solely depend on the characteristics of individual nutrients but is also structured by intimate correlations among multiple nutrients in their amounts across foods. This underscores the importance of nutrient-nutrient connections, which constitute the network structures embodying multiple levels of the nutritional compositions of foods".

edited to add, for Storm's benefit "An interesting question is whether foods with high NFs tend to be more expensive to purchase than foods with low NFs. Fig. 2C shows essentially no correlation between a food’s NF and price per weight (r = −0.02, P = 0.65; see also Fig. E in S1 Appendix)."

Do you know how to access the S1 Appendix? I found several sources with what appears to be the full paper except the appendix.

 

[Geena]

@Kiki Did they eat the meat?

 

[Kiki]

@Kiki Did they eat the meat?

Yes!

 

[Kiki]

Do you know how to access the S1 Appendix? I found several sources with what appears to be the full paper except the appendix.

https://storage.googleapis.com/plos...286c5c3d7f0914341e460247c2954358cd48843e59401

 

[Perris]

Do you know how to access the S1 Appendix? I found several sources with what appears to be the full paper except the appendix.

it's a link in the online paper, just click on it, and or download as a pdf.

 

[saysfaa]

https://storage.googleapis...

Thank you.
I thought it would have usable information such as the "34 such irreducible food sets." Where "such" means sets of 4 foods - the smallest number that makes a set that meets the daily nutritional requirements of a healthy 20 year old male person.

Or an example using more than four but that has foods I can access with some degree of practicality.

The "irreducible" means a given set is "not a superset of any other irreducible food set." (I was taught that you can't use a word in its own definition but maybe it is just explaining rather than defining?)

I can see why they wouldn't put all 20,442 sets, especially since all but the 34 have more than four foods. But the only examples (of any set of any size) are: northern pike, almond, cherimoya, swiss chard

And
Flat fish, almond, cherimoya, red cabbage

It might is worth exploring. My gut feeling is it is like "new math"- a super complicated, confusing way to avoid long division because a few kids might struggle with long division and it gave researchers an opportunity to publish papers and offer something different. - based on the way they compared northern pike liver and sprouted radish seed. I don't see what is much different than scanning the tables of nutrients in a food or the tables of foods high in a given nutrient. The computer data crunching might do it faster but then you have to sort out what foods are practical to access.

 

[Perris]

maybe this overview of the findings will help
https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.org/2018/01/31/what-are-the-worlds-most-nutritious-foods/

 

[saysfaa]

If they gave the tables, it would be interesting to scan through them for ideas.

The sets with many components aren't a disadvantage. A person wouldn't want to do all of them every day but many nutrients aren't necessary every day. They need to balance over time - longer time frames for some than others.

It is also reassuring to see how many combinations (20,000+) using just 1000 food items all can result in meeting the needs per day. Um, actually, when you consider the size of the serving of each can vary as well as the number of food items in a set - there are many more ways that don't meet the needs. It has been a long time since I learned probability - I do remember the permutations get astronomically large very quickly.

 

[Perris]

did you download the S1 data set?